It’s long now since the release of the second Hobbit movie, and most of the heated discussions have subsided. Especially in the case of such a movie, controversy is high. Many things can be said about it: the quantity of action scenes, the cuts and additions to the source material, Bard, Smaug and the chase scene. So much can be said, so much can be criticized.

In this case, I want to concentrate on a topic that many people tend to criticize a lot. Now, before I start the discussion, I strongly recommend to read a previous post of mine, back when I started the movie comparisons with the book. There I present some important points on making adaptions which I will not repeat, but are crucial to follow the discussion.

Second, I would like to recap a term coined by the Tolkien Professor (Corey Olsen) with which I wholeheartedly agree and which should, in my humble opinion, become part of any book adaptation, which is “Critfic”. Critic fiction is the situation in which any viewer of such an adaptation interprets changes made to the source material, imposing his view on how the new material was created. This oftentimes leads to simplistic interpretations on what happened “behind the scenes”, which hampers the analysis of any work of art based on an assumption, be it right or wrong. In other words, the criticism oftentimes becomes the foreground to the discrediting (sometimes the contrary) of a movie or other media, leading to an “un”-meaningful discussion on the development of the story.

Most of us are guilty of such critfic. Sometimes we do not end up liking a piece of work just because the author “rushed” the story or because the director wanted to appeal to a target audience. This may be true, but oftentimes it helps not the interpretation of a work of art or just gives us some superficial understanding that makes us forget the connection of elements in a story.

The basic assumption with which I will work is that most works of fiction, be it a video game, a book or a movie, are usually seen by the creators as legitimately well done (with a few chinks, of course, no one is perfect) and most of the creations of the criticized work of fiction goes beyond the typical “this is just a quick cash in”. In other words, even if flawed or influenced by other forces, most content creators don’t make what they do just for the money, but because of the legitimate wish to write a meaningful or entertaining story.

This is a very common thing that comes up when one talks about The Hobbit, and especially the somewhat uncommon relationship of Kili and Tauriel. Criticism about this one is that Peter Jackson and team only included the elf-maid to make women happy, especially feminists. Also, the “love scene” between her and the dwarf exists only to fill the quota of a typical Hollywood movie – action & an immediate relationship between male and female-.

But in this case I see it totally different. In an action-packed movie, the relationship between Kili and Tauriel is a welcome change of pace to me. If I found something a bit lacking, then it was the few chances of a calm character development moment. Most of the characters just jump around, attack and kill, making the movie a very exciting and sometimes suspenseful experience. But the inclusion of new characters needed also a time for them to be presented and grow. Unlike the children of Bard, I felt Tauriel much more complete, much more developed.

Even though she might have been created for this film specifically, she was also much more tolkinian by hearth. The relationship with the prisoner does reflect an interesting similitude with Beren and Luthien, never reaching the full circle of love like in the original story. It also reflects the wishes and dreams of two races, separated by a hatred. Again, this goes back to the original Lay of Luthien, where King Thingol can not deem the humans as something nearly equal as the elves are, thus sneers on the second child of Ilúvatar. Yes, the trope of the strong, independent woman is still there, such as the one I discussed on my article on Arwen, but this time it was not done by sacrificing a woman.

A second consideration is maybe the idea that Jackson and team have included the lady elf as a way to appeal to feminine audiences, especially those who liked heroic women. Here I have to disagree a bit. Although the option is viable, the character was integrated correctly into the story. She is not just that two dimensional character who is a badass and kills every orc for some unknown reason, but also an emotional being who finds connection with the dwarf, who wants to leave a cave to explore, not knowing that she will get what she wished for.

If we compare this to the book, I could understand greatly the argument. She is definitely not part of the story. There is no dwarf/elf romance going on, and many will take this as an unnecessary addition. But then again, we have to realize the difference between the two mediums. The Hobbit, as a book, was originally a story devised for children and, at the same time and without the author’s knowledge, the beginning of a story that, once published decades later, would capture the imagination of people. The sequel was cold and gritty, somewhat dark, aside form the heroic moments. In short, we have a world growing.

The movie, on the other hand, has gone through a reverse process. It began technically with the sequel, and once the film makers had to make the prequel, they found out that this ambiance did not fit the second movie. Not only viewer expectations had to be filled, but also complexities and story elements to make the adaptation more mature and thus in the same tone as the original trilogy. Keeping the original cast may have been a detriment. The new characters added, especially Tauriel reflect that need. She was not just put in the world, but integrated, and no way better than creating the conflict by sharing a reflection moment with one of the prisoners.

I think that gives the movie a great credit, even though I might not have liked the rest of the actions scenes. But it goes to show that new things can be brought on the table by just flexing the world a bit. The “love” that arises between Kili and Tauriel is not out of place, it does follow some mythological resonances. It also deepens the story beyond the “I am just crossing the forest”, giving more motivations to the movie.

Plus, there remains to be seen what this conflict will do in the third installment.

This week’s post is short. Now that the TMNT trailer was released, I have read as of late a lot of discussion, and how bad it is going to be and so on. Thus I think I should weigh in a bit on this.

As for the history: when I first heard about the production of a movie based on some of my favorite characters, I was excited. When I heard it was going to be directed by Michael Bay my mood lowered to a meh. Why not? I liked the first Transformers movie, so something similar to that could happen. When I heard he was going to make them aliens… well, I understood where that came from, but now I was weary of the idea.

When watching the trailer, I thought it looked good. Shredder is cool and although some object to Megan Fox representing April, I didn’t object. She is now part of the Bay entourage, after all, much like Johnny Depp in a Tim Burton movie. Adaptation has its details.

Now, the greater criticism goes to the faces. In all honesty I don’t like those. Even in the older movies, without special effects, the turtles looked much better with the classic snouts. Also, they look way too big. It is like a tank rolling not so silently. The turtles look impressive, no doubt, but originally they were a bit smaller than April. So yes, if they were not really ninja-like before, now they are even less.

And this brings me to the main point: the ninja part. I somehow got the feeling of many commentators that they wanted the turtles to behave like the traditional silent warrior-assassin. But those who return to the “source material”, up to the newer cartoons, will notice that oftentimes the heroes had to enter situations with all guns blazing. For example, int the original comic, when they travel to another planet, they maim and kill recklessly left and right. Yes, they did some ninja-stuff here and there, but at the end the confrontation with the momentary enemy ended up being a flashy display. I always felt the ninja part was just the excuse to have mutants fighting with martial arts on screen. In other words, I love the TMNT because of all these contradictions and absurdities that make a great, crazy story. A masterwork in pulp-fiction.

Will I watch the movie? No. I am just not motivated enough, as much as in Transformers 2 & 3. I just don’t think these kind of movies appeal to me.

Just a little post scriptum though: for those wondering that such “bad movies” keep being made, just check the earnings if those movies. No matter how supposedly bad they are, they still make great profit. As long as the public watches those things, no matter the quality, they will produce them. So, really consider if you want to watch the movie, even though you “know” it will be bad.

Today’s topic is about movies. To be exact, a question I asked myself after analyzing the ever so popular Lord of the Rings movies. Before entering this discussion let me just remind me the basic idea of this post.

Movies are a visual medium, in other words, the moving pictures have a different perspective compared to a novel. This means that the presenting of a story will always differ if you compare it to a book. First off we have the time limitations. In printing, you have the space you need to explain something. In film, the minutes have to be reduced, since we can hardly expect the public to remain entertained for over 24 hours for one movie. The eternal conflict (which is usually resolved with the comment “I like the books better”) is thus a needles one. When Peter Jackson started the project, I was very clear that the plot of both mediums would only be similar, thus not the same. In my personal opinion, the movies are extremely well done and maybe the only point I really criticise is the treatment of Faramir and his relationship with the Ring.

While reading the letters of Tolkien, though, I found a very interesting note on how the author corrected the screenplay of a previous, animated version that was planned during his lifetime. The criticism of the adaptation was quite fierce. Then I came to think: “What would Tolkien have thought of the newer adaptation?” I know the answer may be not a sure one, but from what I read in this letter, I found some interesting hints on the way he visualized his book being brought to film.

A clarification is needed though. Even as I read the letter, I was not sure if he really understood the medium. His comment “the cannons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different” (letter 210) does show to me that he was not able to see that seeing the story was totally different from reading it. I can not be totally sure about it, since such a view is debatable, but then again I have the feeling that he was not very sure, as a great literate person, on how he could make a movie attractive enough for a public.

On the question of his liking of the movie, I think he would have squirmed a bit when seeing Jackson’s screenplay. I will base this mainly on three facts that we can see on the movies:

Aragorn in Weathertop. During the rather long criticism of the screenplay, Tolkien focuses specially on the scene of Weathertop, initiating his first complaint with: “Strider does not ‘Whip out a sword’ in this book. Naturally not: his sword was broken.” This may seem like a minor complaint to many, but the idea of the re-forging the sword to start the Journey of Becoming a King was a quite clear way for the author to mark the first changes of the Third Age to the Fourth one.
In the movie the sequence is changed. Here we find that Andruil is but reforged until the moment he is going to enter the Path of the Dead, in the place he stops doubting himself and starts finally his ascension to the throne of Gondor. Thus we have two different periods of rise for Aragorn.
For Tolkien though, Weathertop was never a fight. This scene was meant to be brooding, with a terrible consequence to the group of hobbits. Simply said “The riders draw slowly in on foot in darkness […]. There is no fight.” This leads us to the next point;

“[…] showing a preference for fights”. Here Jackson would draw most of the fault in Tolkien’s eyes. How many battles do we have in the movies? There is one (necessary for me) representing the last alliance, albeit short, one against Wargs (which, in my eyes, seems a bit unnecessary, but tries to increase the drama of a ‘lost’ character), multiple warscenes in Osgiliath, plus two big battles that appear in the book. For the author, though, it was much more a matter of ambience. He even claims in the letter that, if a battle had to be eliminated, it would have to be the Hornburg, since “there would be this additional gain that we are going to have a big battle (of which as much should be made as possible), but battles tend to be too similar; the big one [Pelennor Fields] would gain by having no competitor.”
Would the three movies have been more interesting by eliminating the fights? We have to consider that the movies were made in Hollywood-style, which means the spectacular had to prevail. Many changes were made to adapt the films into this format. As a counter example we have the first Hobbit movie, in which the character development has had a heavy influence. Although a nice touch, it seems like it made the movie even more boring to the general public, which poses a problem for me. How many fights more will the next Hobbit movies need to remain as interesting as The Lord of the Rings did? I am not sure if Tolkien’s idea would have worked, but his argument makes sense… if you think it as a book.

Finally we have Saruman’s death, which was not represented at all in the normal movies but had a strange turn in the extended ones. Here Tolkien states that “Z[immerman] has cut out the end of the book, including Saruman’s proper death. In that case I can see no good reason for making him die.” This one may be a little bit more difficult to work with, since the last scene, the rebellion in the Shire, seems like quite an extension for the movies and I can see why it was not included. Also, I have to point out that his death in the extended editions was not quite satisfactory and even too spectacular. First, Legolas got a new thing to brag about and second, the whole idea of the wheel seemed quite unnecessary. Who knows how Tolkien would have taken this business, but I suspect he would have had none of it.

All the points I mentioned do not make the movie bad. It is just a little thought experiment on what the original author might have disliked if he had ever been faced with this. In general the director made a very good interpretation, even though he never maintained the proper dialogues to the proper situations and characters (as he mentioned he wanted in the letter). Still, telling a story as huge as The Lord of the Rings in less than twelve hours was a challenge and, for the most part, well done.

Tolkien himself would have criticised it. But then again, he was a person who loved books, language and writing, making him not so prepared to understand movies as a whole and the way they should tell a story. Also, the new CGI and other effects we can now put into a movie has made the experience of seeing fantasy stories much easier than over 50 years ago. I thus would prefer people to separate the movie from the books. The story, although similar, is totally different. If one wants the complete experience, he would have to read the book, but who reads as much today as we did in the past?

Lately movies have tried to emulate the epicness we had seen in the famous over three hours films like Ben Hur and others. Not only that, they want to surpass the amount of material they can show in a very limited format. We already had to suffer through a Harry Potter 7 1 and 2 and through the last part of the Twilight saga. Now, the odd adventure of the Hollywood filmmakers has continued with the ever classic The Hobbit.

I will be completely honest here: I did not want to watch the movie. But this wish was not because I loathed the final product, but above all because the new trend of parting al movies into smaller parts. But let’s start with the positive aspects, shall we?

The picture was just great. It is the usual Peter Jackson greatness, mixed with this gross image of the enemy that, just by the looks, is easily identifiable. Orcs are back, also more complex goblins. But greater yet is the image of the 12 dwarves. Neatly dressed and well-played as semi-barbaric folk only interested in gold and smashing an orc’s head, they were greatly portrayed by each actor. Definitely a big win.

Also, previous actors continued to show off their talents, making this movie memorable. But above all, the main character again managed to daze all the viewers. The great scenery was just, like in The Lord of The Rings, bedazzling.

This part of the review, though, you might already have read dozens and dozens of times. So, after having said the niceties and the big wins, I want to really focus on my main criticism of the movie. I liked the movie personally, but I had to delay the review because of one detail: I wanted more opinions. I asked co-workers and friends to tell me how they felt with the new movie and what they had experienced. Two answers were given to this question:

a) It was a great movie.

b) I slept during the movie.

Now, both these reactions stem from the same problem: while those interested in Tolkien and the wider mythology have come to embrace the extras that have drawn out the movie for over two hours, the normal viewer, who is expected to see this movie with the hardcore fan and interested, will not like it.

Fili and Kili, two of the twelve dwarves.

Even now some people tell me, when we talk about the Lord of the Rings trilogy, that it was at times boring, but it basically achieved what it was made for: to entertain the normal movie-goer. The Hobbit, on the other hand, as achieved what the previous trilogy had avoided almost perfectly: boredom over long periods of time.

Parts of this is due to the freedom of time Peter Jackson and crew got. The movie is riddled with scenes that are not precisely needed, even though they add. But even then, they tend to throw the Middle-Earth timeline into disarray. The scene with Radagast is one of those. Suddenly, the Mirkwood turns into the dark wood in mere days, when in the books it has been dark for hundreds of years. Now Sauron has been dead for less than 400 years, even though the third age began with the dead of him and it has been running even more centuries.

The sheer pressure of making more and more story does not only lengthen the movie unnecessarily, but it also makes the supposed continuity vanish step by step between The Hobbit and LotR.

Many elements do not belong in the movie, like Azog and others, but I accepted them, since the public needs more action. Besides, if the movie would have followed the book exactly, the first part would have been very boring. Still, it managed to be boring. The idea of making so many pictures out of ONE story just does not make sense for me. It is not necessary, and although it is interesting, it can be more difficult than useful. Now we have a public separated in two strongly divided parts and, although The Hobbit will make a nice dozen of Oscars again, it just follows the new merchandising pattern of Hollywood: more material, more movies, more time and more sales. This movie could have been done easily in two movies, but then again, we buy anything that has a good name on it. Don’t we?

The last years have been interesting in the development in many technologies. I still remember the day we marveled over Pixar’s famous Toy Story, the first complete 3D animated movie with a lot of realism (considering it was a cartoon). It was impressing for sure, and although we did not know what consequences it would exactly have, we had the feeling we were going through a revolution.

And certainly we did. Not only movies changed: games did too. Mario turned into 3D, Resident Evil already appeared in that format… nothing was the same. We could say that the 90s, especially the end of them, were the times 2D died and 3D rose aggressively. To some extend it became a huge success; Mario got into an excellent run of games, Zelda was even greater once you could walk around in third person. On the other hand, we also saw the fails: how about Castlevania 64? Anyone remember most of the 3D Sonic games? Seems like some things were just born to stay as a sidescroller.

As you can see so far, I am quite neutral when it goes to speaking about the whole 3D phenomena. It has, after all, brought some great innovations. What bugs me though, is this need of converting everything into this format. Check for example the new Mario Bros. series that has come out for the Wii. It is in 2D again, and it still rocks. Also, Casltlevania has returned to his previous format, working just fine. What really is incredibly frustrating is how 3D has invaded the cinemas.

Just look at your local cinema and please tell me that most of the movies have not been in this strange 3D format at one point. Now, most people like it, but I just fail to understand why you are loving it. First off, for this gimmick to work, you need a pair of glasses. I myself wear some glasses, which already brings up the annoying difficulty of watching my favourite movies in the new dimension. Rest be assured, I have never again watched a movie with glasses.

Be honest to yourself too. What kind of new experience do you gain with this? I understand that it can be fun to have an explosion closing in on you, but the excitement it provokes is pretty much gone after you see the fourth detonation. Form there on, all that keeps you watching the picture is *gasp* the story, the effects and the occasional hot character. What is the difference now?

This whole 3D is just a successful marketing ploy to make you spend more money on a movie that is as enjoyable in three dimensions as it would be in the regular format. Honestly, I really don’t understand why people are loving it and why cinemas flood their theaters with this expensive experience. There were even times I could not watch a movie I wanted to see because it was just in 3D! They were forcing me to spend more money. Needless to say, I waited a week more to see it in a normal format later.

This one was already amazing in 2D! Why this?

Also comes this strange ideas of movies that were done in 2D to be forced into 3D… just to sell more. Why is that even necessary? At least in the third dimension pictures they try to make some effects pop out,s o you can enjoy them a bit more with a good blade closing in to your eye. But, for example, the movie The Avengers never had such an effect… and still was ported to 3D. This is not only utterly useless, but another example of trying to get, for the same movie, even more money, without really adding anything special to the experience.

Why am I against the 3D? It is easy. It is a technology not yet correctly developed. Granted, we don’t need two colors now to watch the movie, but in general it still needs those annoying glasses. Even the new bazillion-dollar T.V.s require you to use them! Let’s face it, 3D has been sold to us by force. And the consumer prefers to watch a gimmick with no sense and even bordering on frustrating instead of expecting a bit more of reason. Demand creates this. But have you seen the Nintendo 3DS? It has been able to replicate a good effect without the need of extra stuff and you can turn it off in case you can not stand the visual trick (headaches, anyone?). This is what a good theatre should include: options for the same price.

We have still a way to go to enhance our movie going experience, but we should also not settle with the immediate solution. I would love to see a good 3D effect… without the need of some fraggin’ extra item to disturb my already hindered vision!

I am writing this article just after seeing The Dark Knight Rises (on Saturday), a movie which fascinated me. So yes, this a positive review on it. Usually, when I comment on something I just saw on the cinema, I always say something like: “I liked this movie, but…”. I am a very harsh critic when it comes to the moving pictures, and not few have taken ill to my comments. Usually that’s why many people think I am a negative person. In the meanwhile I refuse to comment to that. Let me just say what I think about The Dark Knight Rises: I love it, but…

So, in order to be able to give my two cents, I will move to highlight some points about the movie. The underline is still, that everyone (or at least almost) should see it. It may be not as grand as the previous part of the series, but I felt really no lack of epicness. That being said let me just say that I also have not read any critic on the movie yet, since I always try not to tarnish my few forays into the cinemas with opinions… it always turns out I expect too much or too less of something. By the way, it is also a late review, but maybe I can bring something new to think about!

So, let’s get going:

Excellent story! Period. I was at the edge of my seat the whole movie, and I could not stop staring at the screen. There were even times I wanted to stand up and just hooray at the heroes (and villains). Definitely worth the experience.

Hathaway. Although Catwoman was excellently portrayed, I am not quite a fan of the casting. It is Definitely much better than Halle Berry. But somehow there were moments I could not imagine she was Selina Kyle. Anyway, this is more a personal perk, so don’t pay too much attention to this opinion!

The inclusion of Bane’s signature move. Now, you may wonder what I mean with this, but for this you most go back a few years in the comic book history. I don’t remember the exact year, but there was a mayor event after Superman’s death and revival in which Bane actually defeated Batman… by breaking his back (obviously Bruce got better after a few months). The inclusion of this and how they put it together with the story was just brilliant. I liked the idea of the crippled millionaire who had to literally crawl out of his hole to be able to assume his role as a protector. Yes, the title predicted exactly what you would see. And it did this in a glorious manner. Believe me, just because of that I finally made my mind and I will buy the trilogy. Mind you that I never buy movies!

Uh, Batman, are you there? My biggest concern may be the fact that sometimes I had this uneasy feeling that this story could have been written under another name. In other words, was the inclusion of the Batman cast and its hero really necessary? I felt sometimes that I could have watched the movie with another set of characters and it would have been as great. I don’t exactly know how to feel about this. The whole story arc took and interesting turn with the third movie, but it felt a but not-batmanish, if you catch my drift. In other words, this whole revolution idea felt a bit odd to me. Or maybe I am just being stubborn and I am shying on how the director took a look into the world of the Caped Crusader, since it really broke a few molds. Innovation is not always a bad thing, and we saw it in Burton’s vision of Gotham City.

The obligatory sequel! Now, this one is really something I am concerned about. To be honest, the whole trilogy is great. Maybe the first movie was not as interesting as I would have liked, but the other two were great. In fact, they are so grand that I fear that a small mistake in the next movie could crash the whole effort Nolan has put into the creation of this masterpieces. We already have seen this sad turn of events in the same franchise: Batman Forever anyone? Now that we know that there is a Robin involved and that Batman is officially dead to every one in Gotham City, but will return, the whole series of movies is at that delicate point of having too many sequels and with this, that it will come to a crash because of some ideas for the story that may go wrong. If there is really a necessity of a sequel, then let us just hope that they put as much effort in that movie as in the present one. I would not mind to find finally a serious Robin sidekick in a Batman movie! Please Nolan????

Well then, I am off to catch up on some reviews I wanted to take a look at. In any case, I’ll see you next week, or maybe a bit earlier!

Last Ending the Story I had first analyzed the ending of the popular The Lord of the Rings to see why this apparent extra piece of story actually completes and explains the whole story. This analysis was started because of my reluctance to accept the seventh book of the Harry Potter series as a conclusion to the series; or at least as an adequate one. But we also have to face that not all books finish the same way LotR does… otherwise we would really see no real variation on stories, at least in their structures.

Part 2

But wait! There is more…

Affirming that Tolkien had the best ending ever is most probably an overstatement. I would say that the book has the perfect ending to what had been proposed for so many pages. This closes the story arc in a perfect manner, avoiding thus this uncomfortable feeling that there could be more. After all, the whole trilogy is based around the closing of an era, so every part of it must find the closure. As we see, if there would have been an open ending, the story may have felt utterly incomplete.

There is the famous open ending as an alternative, but this one is to be used with great care. Let use for this case two examples, starting with G.R.R. Martin’s now famous Game of Thrones series. “But why?” you may ask yourself, “There are still two more books missing!” That’s the point!

The open ending in an ongoing series has a central use for the advancement of the story: you are kept in expectance, excited of what may happen in the next book, making you want to read the next part. When Arya, just after the death of his father Eddard Stark, is suddenly pulled away from the mob to be taken elsewhere, you can’t keep but wonder what is in store for her in the next book. And this is just one example of the multiple cliffhangers that Martin, in his excellent narrative, leaves for us the reader to wonder on. This is obviously not created to give an end to the whole situation… it just feeds us partial information so we can not do anything else but guess what may happen the next book.

Or just leaving room for more…

The one open ending I want to focus on, though, is more like the ones we find in some of the novels of Anne Rice. Let us for example my favorite novel in the “Vampire Chronicles”: Memnoch the Devil. Although it goes way off what happens in the first three books of the chronicles, I think that the tale is quite interesting and different from the typical blood-story that is a normal topic in any vampire story.

But going back on topic, this particular book ends with the discovery of Veronica’s veil, Lestat entering in a catatonic state and some vampires killing themselves under the sun in public. I know it sounds weird, but let us analyze a bit further: the whole travel with Memnoch is a travel of knowledge and selfdiscovery. The main point is to find faith again in a world and life that seems not only endless, but hopeless. For Lestat, this means to confront the very basis of humanity. The whole trip through time, space and dimensions ends up revealing one of the articles of faith, which changes the people around the beloved vampire of the “Vampire Chronicles”. The catatonic state he slips into is nothing more but an end to his own series and the beginning of all other books that appeared afterwards. The other vampires win their position in the central stage. Honestly, not much of my liking, but for fans a golden opportunity.

This closes a cycle, but clearly opens a new one. This leaves room to the reader to imagine whatever may happen. The new faith found by the vampires leaves a hole in the story, but also gives us the chance to imagine how we can imagine a society in which society shares places with their monsters, even with them in religious fervor, a thing we should not be able to share. In this case information is left unsaid deliberately, because it invites to a new adventure. But deep into the story there is a closure, although maybe one that we did not want.

On to the master of horror

Another great example of an open ending is H.P. Lovecraft. One of my absolute favorite authors, you may have noticed that if you read his short stories, rarely leaves one concluded. This open ending is maybe even bolder, since in reality all we do is understand the madness of the character, but never to see an end to the cosmic horror that lurches behind the curtains of the cosmos. Let’s take as an example “The Shadow Over Innsmouth”. The whole investigation the main character is more or less forced in finds an ending when it stops an unholy rite and the spreading of an race. At the same time, he discovers that he is part of that destroyed race and plans to join the survivors to start the plans of world domination again. Same goes for the classic “Call of Cthulhu”. Even though the sailors defeated the Elder God, the cult still kills the investigator for discovering parts of the truth… leaving the sense of doom lingering.

Both examples are typical of Lovecraft’s writing, and give a perfect example of an open ending as it should be written. The reader himself is called to imagine his own rest of the story, of what lingers and what the investigator has not discovered yet. This is why this author’s style was copied so much and whit much success: all the other writers expanded that mysterious universe and gave it even more exciting cases to follow. We could even say that this expanded universe is a typical example of what more or less goes through a reader’s head in a good ending with possibilities left open.

A second short conclusion

This time we explored the open ending a little bit. We have to accept that not all stories can have a perfect closure as the one Tolkien wrote over fifty years ago. But even the open conclusion leaves us with a little closure, even though not perfect. But instead of leaving us wanting, it permits us to participate in the story, even though it is only us. These endings make us imagine possibilities and lets us be part of the creation, in one way or another. If there is no final conclusion, at least it gives us the elements enough to enjoy the book or tale further than anticipated.

Also, on a review on the recent Prometheus movie, Chris Stuckman reminds us that sometimes it is good to leave some questions open, to be asked about what we think and what we imagine of a story. If you close up a story correctly and leave some answers open correctly, you may create even further excitement… or even wild new stories!

But at the same time, the open ending is a terrible weapon. If the door is left too open, it can create a great hole in a reader, leaving us wanting for more… better said, demanding more, instead of participating in the ending.

Next time we will wrap up the whole discussion and finally give an answer to why Harry Potter fails on his last book and on how we can imagine an, at least, adequate ending to a fantasy series. Until then, may the gods guide you!

May they smile upon your way!

Posts navigation

Search for:

Welcome to a blog of gaming, movies, books and some history. In here I explore the stories that have carried us over decades, yes, even centuries, to what defines us today. I hope you enjoy it and comment, I am always open to respond!
This blog is updated whenever possible, once a week.